Post sayings or stories from Buddhist traditions which you find interesting, inspiring or useful. (Your own stories are welcome on DW, but in the Creative Writing or Personal Experience forums rather than here.)

Simon E. wrote:Steering clear of relationships because they are of necessity ephemeral seems to me extreme.

Simon, you may want to re-read what I wrote in the post above yours: I'm under the impression I said exactly the same thing. I am also confused as to why all in sudden you've switched the original topic, which was "marriage" to "all and any relationships" in general. Generalisation is a form of manipulation.

I've never said I believe we should steer clear of relationships. Indeed, I started my first post by saying that:

Tenzin & Söpa wrote:...a life spent without sharing compassion, friendship and kindness would be a sad life to live, indeed.

Still, I do not share reddust's generalisation when she says:

Marriage forms an integral part of our lives.

It may true for some, but not for all.

Last edited by the seafarer on Thu Jan 02, 2014 6:17 pm, edited 1 time in total.

ཁོང་ཁྲོ་སློང་མཁན་མེད་ན། བཟོད་པ་སུ་ལ་སྒོམ།

When there is no one to provoke anger, how shall we practice patience?

Simon E. wrote:Steering clear of relationships because they are of necessity ephemeral seems to me extreme.

Simon, you may want to re-read what I wrote in the post above yours: I'm under the impression I said exactly the same thing. I am also confused as to why all in sudden you've switched the original topic, which was "marriage" to "all and any relationships" in general. Generalisation is a form of manipulation.

I've never said I believe we should steer clear of relationships. Indeed, I started my first post by saying that:

Tenzin & Söpa wrote:...a life spent without sharing compassion, friendship and kindness would be a sad life to live, indeed.

Still, I do not share reddust's generalisation when she says:

Marriage forms an integral part of our lives.

It may true for some, but not for all.

Well you need not concern yourself that I will manipulate any more in response to you..

ui

" My heart's in the Highlands my heart is not here.My heart's in the Highlandschasing the deer."

Tenzin & Söpa wrote:Simon, you may want to re-read what I wrote in the post above yours: I'm under the impression I said exactly the same thing. I am also confused as to why all in sudden you've switched the original topic, which was "marriage" to "all and any relationships" in general. Generalisation is a form of manipulation.

I've never said I believe we should steer clear of relationships. Indeed, I started my first post by saying that:

Tenzin & Söpa wrote:...a life spent without sharing compassion, friendship and kindness would be a sad life to live, indeed.

I think the issue is, you seem to be saying that somehow marriage is uniquely obstructing, whereas other relationships are not. Basically the renunciate argument (which is a common one that we get into on dw, btw, not like you're the first to bring this up) only applies if you're willing to go quite a ways into the whole shabang in terms of renunciate lifestyle, including things like acquaintances, pets, etc.

If one is living a householder life, but simply isn't married, I think it raises people's hackles somewhat when people mention marriage as some special source of samsaric activity, since we can probably find plenty of non-married, and even celibate householders (and renunciates too for that matter) who have just as much obstruction via their non-marriage relationships with things, people, etc. Heck, for plenty of people lack of relationship is as binding to them as relationships are.

I don't think there's one answer, marriage simply isn't for some people..and that should be respected for sure. I also don't see eye to eye with the viewpoint of renunciation of outer things being a valid path for everyone either.

May the eyes of living beings be gladdened by skies made splendid by clouds that lightnings garland, while on earth below, the peacocks dance with joy as showers of rain, falling gently, approach.

reddust wrote:without a marriage...an agreement between two or more people to start a family, dependng on culture, "most" of us would not be here. And i am remiss in the fallacy of generalization.

Actually, reddust, that's not a generalisation. It's the simple truth. None of us would be here without parents - without exceptions.

(A generalisation is a manipulation in which you take a small truth that only applies to a small subset and apply it to a bigger set: for example if my neighbour had a black cat and that cat was nasty, and I said that "all black cats are nasty", that would be a generalisation.)

I respect people who had the courage and dedication to devote their lives to raise a generation (sometimes more than one) of children. Few people do I regard with the respect I hold for the generation of women my grandmother and great-grandmother's age. Did they benefitted others? In most cases, by far, yes. (But did they find true happiness? ...that's the one point we were originally discussing...)

On a slight different note, mentioning grandmothers reminded me of this video: it's a famous speech given by a Swiss/British philosopher, Alain De Botton, in Korea. Here's a link I hope some of you will find interesting or challenging.

ཁོང་ཁྲོ་སློང་མཁན་མེད་ན། བཟོད་པ་སུ་ལ་སྒོམ།

When there is no one to provoke anger, how shall we practice patience?

We do all kinds of things, all the time that don't lead to true happiness, that's why we try to make those things the path...i'm still somewhat unsure what point you are trying to make about marriage, that couldn't be made about nearly anything..speaking of generalizations;)

May the eyes of living beings be gladdened by skies made splendid by clouds that lightnings garland, while on earth below, the peacocks dance with joy as showers of rain, falling gently, approach.

Johnny Dangerous wrote:We do all kinds of things, all the time that don't lead to true happiness, that's why we try to make those things the path...i'm still somewhat unsure what point you are trying to make about marriage, that couldn't be made about nearly anything..speaking of generalizations;)

Hi Johnny, thanks for your reply. I see your point, and I agree - including the last part. There's something you said earlier that I particularly appreciate:

Johnny Dangerous wrote:I think many marriages end due to both partners projecting an image of a Perfect Partner on the other over time, then being disappointment with the results!

This, as you've just said, can apply to other types of relationships as well (like the relationship between parents and children or between friends, etc). The example I have in mind is when people offer "conditioned" love - I love you as long as you do this or that, etc. I've seen a thing or two in the area of unhealthy human relationships in my life, so many examples of this come to mind.

However, I find that the very premises of marriage (because normally spouses project so many expectations on their partners) encourage unhealthy relationships more often than mere friendship or other relationships. There's a lot more selfishness and attachment at play. I'm not even talking in Buddhist terms here - just simple psychology. (I hold certain views as part of my spirituality but I don't wish to force them onto others who don't share them)

In this line of thought, I really like this contribution you added:

Johnny Dangerous wrote:In that sense, a marriage "with bodhicitta", if there is such a thing, is one where these projections are absent, and there is a lack of judgement, and a lack of conditions for love, in short - utter acceptance of your family..the same could go for any personal relationship.

I wholeheartedly agree with this - this is the ideal of marriage and any relationship, and if anyone chooses the path of marriage, I can't think of a better marital path to implement. It's especially commendable if all the parties involved agree to experience their marriage this way. Not easy, though.

ཁོང་ཁྲོ་སློང་མཁན་མེད་ན། བཟོད་པ་སུ་ལ་སྒོམ།

When there is no one to provoke anger, how shall we practice patience?

I wanted to thank you Johnny for your posts, which are very pertinent and well-thought-out. Thanks for taking the time to post them.Indeed, they do provide good food for thought.

Johnny Dangerous wrote:I think the issue is, you seem to be saying that somehow marriage is uniquely obstructing, whereas other relationships are not. (...)

Thanks, this raises two points I'd like to clarify. The first one is that I didn't say marriage is uniquely obstructing. I said I see marriage as particularly obstructing. We were just talking about marriage orginally. (Of course there are other lifestyles that can be particularly obstructing.)

The second and foremost point is that since the beginning I made it clear that all the views I expressed where my personal views. Surely I am allowed to hold personal views even if the majority of posters here disagree with them? I thought I had expressed them in a polite and respectful way - if I lacked tact in any way, I apologise for that - but not for having a different opinion that simply reflects how I personally choose to live my life.

Tenzin & Söpa wrote:If anything, personally I find marriage (...)

Tenzin & Söpa wrote:I do not mean to sound indelicate in saying this, so please accept this for what it is, just a different point of view(....)

I do believe that comparing different views can enrich us. My experience in Buddhism and in life is different from that of each of you and all of you have different experiences to each other - surely this is fertile ground for discussion and growth? In Buddhism in particular we're taught there are different paths - nobody can walk mine and I certainly can't walk yours.

As you beautifully put:

Johnny Dangerous wrote:I don't think there's one answer, marriage simply isn't for some people..and that should be respected for sure. I also don't see eye to eye with the viewpoint of renunciation of outer things being a valid path for everyone either.

With this, I wholeheartedly agree.

ཁོང་ཁྲོ་སློང་མཁན་མེད་ན། བཟོད་པ་སུ་ལ་སྒོམ།

When there is no one to provoke anger, how shall we practice patience?

I'm just going to take a critical approach here, since I think that it's most constructive when you challenge your views as best as possible. It's important to have reasons for your behaviour, so this can help. I may be wrong, and I am sure in many places I will be, but I'll just give my two cents.

reddust wrote:without a marriage...an agreement between two or more people to start a family, dependng on culture, "most" of us would not be here.

Wouldn't we then be better for it? After all, better to not be here at all. To paraphrase Schopenhauer:

let people realise the snare that lies in beauty, and the absurd comedy of reproduction will end. The development of the intellect will at last extinguish the will to reproduce, and will at last achieve the extinction of the race. Nothing could form a finer denouement to the insane tragedy of the restless will. Why should the curtain that has just fallen on defeat and death, always rise again upon a new life, a new struggle, and a new defeat? How long shall we be lured into this much ado about nothing, this endless pain that leads only to a painful end? When shall we have the courage to fling defiance into the face of the will? To tell it that the loveliness of life is a lie and that the greatest boon of all is death.

It's for no coincidence that in Buddhist countries, marriage was not a rite conducted by monks, as if they were in some way priests, but by Brahmins. Fundamentally, marriage is not a Buddhist institution, but an inheritance of whatever culture one is apart of. In many Buddhist countries this was the inheritance of the Indo-European patriarchal model, and in others you see all sorts of arrangement: polygyny, polyandry, endogamy, exogamy, matrilineality, patrilineality, etc. None of which were decided upon by Buddhist norms. Of course, people will develop and define their identity of "Buddhist" in order to suit themselves, being naturally acting in self-interest, and you will find that they will often merge, and people will come up with all sorts of excuses for their behaviour within any contortion of Buddhist logic possible.

The idea that somehow marriage is for love, or exists for love, is really absurd. It exists because of selfish human desires, which perpetuate suffering. For most of history, the idea that you had to love the person you marry would be viewed as foreign - this is an entirely modern view, which only arises because we have the ability to continue civilization without a 2.3 rate of replacement. Marriage exists because males had preferred it, for the propagation of their genes (as expressed in their own sexual desire), and because women had preferred it, for the raising of propagation of their genes and ability to raise children (as expressed in both their own sexual desire and hypergamous tendencies).

But for the record, if you are in a marriage, by all means, it makes sense to treat the person you are with with the most compassion you can - in this sense I agree with you reddust. However, in practice, it is most compassionate to actually divorce and not be in a relationship. Fundamentally, this is a hard truth, but I think you will know it to be true.

Johnny Dangerous wrote:If one is living a householder life, but simply isn't married, I think it raises people's hackles somewhat when people mention marriage as some special source of samsaric activity, since we can probably find plenty of non-married, and even celibate householders (and renunciates too for that matter) who have just as much obstruction via their non-marriage relationships with things, people, etc. Heck, for plenty of people lack of relationship is as binding to them as relationships are.

How can you be obstructed by the lack of something? I also happen to lack a ferret. Am I obstructed by my lack of a ferret?

Marriage (-gamy) is not just a "special source" of samsaric activity, it is the prime source.

In Melford Spiro's "Buddhism and Society," his interviews with Burmese monks yielded almost a unanimous reply: the most difficult thing about monasticism, is celibacy. From the beginning to the end of the path, everyone's greatest obstacle is sexual desire. Sexual desire is the most basic unit of samsara, and is expressed in mating.

I think people are afraid of not being able to affirm their own lifestyles, and indeed, this is important for self-esteem. But really, you'll be better separate. I don't mean that you will want to be separate, or that it's easy to control yourself when desires arise, it obviously isn't as even Spiro's monks demonstrate, but it's better than marriage because marriage is a source of suffering. Of course, if you want to have a special "best buddy" and call it "marriage" then by all means, that's probably alright.

Johnny Dangerous wrote:I don't think there's one answer, marriage simply isn't for some people..and that should be respected for sure. I also don't see eye to eye with the viewpoint of renunciation of outer things being a valid path for everyone either.

I don't think being single is really tantamount to renunciation, since it's just the lack of having acted. One does not need to engage in any formal ceremony of refusing to act, or renunciation, to not marry.

But what does it mean to say that not marrying is not a valid path for everyone?

Isn't everyone born single?andWhen is marriage a better choice than being single?

I can only imagine that the circumstances in which one is actually better off being married are ones in which one must be dependant - in which case marriage is more or less slavery (which is implied in the Sanskrit term for wife).

I actually would like to post some quotations from the tripitaka about marriage, but I think it might be too much for any prospective replier to take in. More or less, the picture you'll get is that, in marriage, treat your spouse well, but no marriage is best.

You can be obstructed by a lack of something by having aversion to it, I think is the answer to that. Frankly I see this with a lot of celibate people i've met in my life.

Far as the Tripitaka and marriage..yes, it's already been mentioned that the renunicate/sravaka approach is one thing, and it is the one found in the Pali Canon..but there is obviously a spectrum of how to deal with our worldly existences in Buddhism..and this is a Mahayana/Vajrayana board so...

The idea that somehow marriage is for love, or exists for love, is really absurd. It exists because of selfish human desires, which perpetuate suffering. For most of history, the idea that you had to love the person you marry would be viewed as foreign - this is an entirely modern view, which only arises because we have the ability to continue civilization without a 2.3 rate of replacement. Marriage exists because males had preferred it, for the propagation of their genes (as expressed in their own sexual desire), and because women had preferred it, for the raising of propagation of their genes and ability to raise children (as expressed in both their own sexual desire and hypergamous tendencies).

This is exactly what I was saying about aversion, all these things are just our samsaric survival mechanism..including marriage, but that being the case, for those that are married, feel compelled to be married etc., it seems a better thing to take that onto the path than to have this sort of aversion towards it. The door to nirvana is through samsara after all..that means different things for different folks i'm sure, but this idea of a "pure" set of things that you must be or do to be Dharmic is by my understanding, purely a sravaka view of what is required for liberation.

I think people are afraid of not being able to affirm their own lifestyles, and indeed, this is important for self-esteem. But really, you'll be better separate. I don't mean that you will want to be separate, or that it's easy to control yourself when desires arise, it obviously isn't as even Spiro's monks demonstrate, but it's better than marriage because marriage is a source of suffering. Of course, if you want to have a special "best buddy" and call it "marriage" then by all means, that's probably alright.

Yep, your whole post is a great description of the Hinayana view on things.

I actually would like to post some quotations from the tripitaka about marriage, but I think it might be too much for any prospective replier to take in. More or less, the picture you'll get is that, in marriage, treat your spouse well, but no marriage is best.

I've read a good chunk of the Pali Canon, and it was my first reading in Buddhism as well, sop it's not that i'm unfamiliar with what you are saying by any means, I just feel it represents a particular way of looking at things, and is not some sort the definitive Buddhist position on a thing like marriage.

Am I trying to "justify" being married, well no, not really..that's not something I can justify, or need to justify any more than many of my other life decisions...what I can do is either choose to take it on the path, or try to contort my practice into something that rejects the rest of my life, rather than transforming..sounds like a terrible option for me.

In Melford Spiro's "Buddhism and Society," his interviews with Burmese monks yielded almost a unanimous reply: the most difficult thing about monasticism, is celibacy. From the beginning to the end of the path, everyone's greatest obstacle is sexual desire. Sexual desire is the most basic unit of samsara, and is expressed in mating.

It's patently obvious, inside of Buddhism and out, that many people are unable to control their sexual attachments through celibacy, which shows to me fairly clearly, that it is not the only way of cutting the cord..nor the most effective for everyone. Anecdotally,I might even argue (if I was feelin' sassy) that for many householders of today...celibacy seems to produce greater sexual neuroses in many people than lack of it!

May the eyes of living beings be gladdened by skies made splendid by clouds that lightnings garland, while on earth below, the peacocks dance with joy as showers of rain, falling gently, approach.

It's good for the forum that you are mod Johnny, the downside is that we have less of your robust good sense as a contributor.One of the saddest sights is the regular threads that crop up on a forum known to many where people who are afraid of their own sexuality rationalise that fear by identifying it as a spiritual endeavour.

Zhen Li wrote:Fundamentally, marriage is not a Buddhist institution, but an inheritance of whatever culture one is apart of. (...)

The idea that somehow marriage is for love, or exists for love.......

Zhen Li's point about the difference between love and marriage encourages me to share my two cents on this point. Once again, just see this for what it is: just a different point of view from a different human being. If it's useful, take it, if not, just leave it.

I come from what I suspect is a different culture than most of you. I belong to an ethnic minority that until not long ago lived in a pre-industrial way. This means some things I have experienced in my childhood probably reflect the way your grandparents or great-grandparents lived.

Traditionally, in this culture women owned the land (and the house, inherited from their family), and men the herds. Marriage existed as a ceremony during which the young couple was blessed for fertility and the man was introduced to the community as the future father of all the children the woman would bear. That's all. Women would keep their maiden name; the children would take the father's name but they were still considered to "belong" to the mother's family. (This was particularly convenient considering men were often away with the herds or died in violent ways. Because women lived close to their own relatives, even if widowed, they had all the help and protection they needed to raise their children.)

Men and women would join in marriage because, simply put, it was the social norm to achieve the only goal they had - survive: this way, they'd work on the farm together (land + animals), they'd take care of their elderly who in turn would offer help around the house, and raise children - again because children would then help on the farm and one day look after them. They led simple lives and stuck together because surviving required their collaborative efforts.

I'm not saying they didn't love each other - but romantic love or intellectual affinity as people idealise them now in modern relationships weren't part of this equation. And this is how people lived for centuries, everywhere.

Couples would grow old together because they had just one, strong, common purpose.

Now a lot of people who live in modern societies have become islands. You don't need others in your household to survive, you can have a job and handle all the house chores by yourself and still enjoy a stimulating social life. And even if you decide to share your life with someone special, there's plenty you want to accomodate at the same time: there's your education, there's your career, there's personal growth, there's your friends, your hobbies and interests... and on top of that, a sentimentally, intellectually, spiritually fulfilling relationship with a partner. And in all of that, we expect to find happiness.

That's a lot to accommodate - especially when a lot of people in modern society live by the mantra that no matter what you've got, you always "deserve more and better".

I'm not trying to glamourise subsistence farming. It was mere survival and just slightly above the life of animals. Nor am I condemning modern society and the freedom it brought. It's not my decision to make.

I'm simply stating that ideals of romantic love and soul mates have not been part of human history until very, very recently and under the influence of fiction (narrative, cinema, etc), and that this has emerged right during a time when, due to the choices people have access to, they are more and more disinclined to renounce their personal achievements or desires or needs to accomodate (without begrudging it) those of their partner or children or family. The way I see it, accommodating all of this is a very difficult path and one not entirely beaten yet.

People who have fully walked this path till very old age will hopefully share their wisdom with us...

Last edited by the seafarer on Thu Jan 02, 2014 11:38 pm, edited 1 time in total.

ཁོང་ཁྲོ་སློང་མཁན་མེད་ན། བཟོད་པ་སུ་ལ་སྒོམ།

When there is no one to provoke anger, how shall we practice patience?

Right..I definitely wouldn't argue that marriage is somehow special, I think it is a samsaric thing..but so is most of what we do, life is a samsaric thing, and it IS an opportunity to practice the perfections, transform circumstances, whatever else. I don't think it's unique or special any more than other opportunities to practice are.

I'm simply stating that ideals of romantic love and soul mates have not been part of human history until very, very recently and under the influence of fiction (narrative, cinema, etc), and that this has emerged right during a time when, due to the choices people have access to, they are more and more disinclined to renounce to their personal achievements or desires or needs to accomodate (without begrudging it) those of their partner or children or family. The way I see it, accommodating all of this is a very difficult path and one not entirely beaten yet.

I don't believe my wife is my soul mate, or any such thing like that. I could be married i'm sure to a number of different people, and be ok, or no one and be ok - I don't have some silly view like that about the "purpose" behind a thing like marriage - it is what it is. What I do think is that from a Buddhist perspective it seems to be that healthy relationships that nurture (among other things) a sense of self-sacrifice, and sincerity with regards to the needs of others don't deserve the derision they get in some Buddhist circles - be it marriage or whatever else.

May the eyes of living beings be gladdened by skies made splendid by clouds that lightnings garland, while on earth below, the peacocks dance with joy as showers of rain, falling gently, approach.